Andrea Mitchell: Senate’s Dislike of Cruz Should Have Made Candidacy ‘a Non-Starter’

Newsbusters ^ | November 26, 2015 | Curtis Houck

[Isara]

Closing out the Wednesday edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell remarked how the presidential candidacy of Republican Senator Ted Cruz (Tex) would have been sunk and declared “a non-starter” under so-called normal circumstances due to so many of Cruz’s Senate colleagues having a disdain for him.

Mitchell was speaking with former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman and MSNBC political analyst Michael Steele when she exclaimed: “The conventional wisdom has always been that Ted Cruz had so alienated all his colleagues that he was a non-starter to be a national candidate, but this year, that could be an advantage.”

Watch the video.

Steele wholeheartedly agreed and elaborated on the idea that this “was something from the very beginning as far as Cruz was concerned” with the premise that “the less the folks in D.C. liked him the better.”

He also predicted that the absence of support from his colleagues and D.C.-establishment types will “benefit him going forward because he truly is outside both the establishment and what Washington has been talking about the last couple of years.”

So, the lesson here, folks, is rather simple: Liberals like Mitchell are growing more and more leery of conservatives and their opportunities to employ their liberal thought process are drying up.

The transcript of the segment from MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on November 25 can be found below.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports
November 25, 2015
12:52 p.m. Eastern

ANDREA MITCHELL: Ted Cruz is moving on up in the Iowa Quinnipiac poll, pulling ahead of Ben Carson, who’s dropped to third. Marco Rubio competing with Cruz to be the alternative to Donald Trump and Carson, if and when the race gets real, so let's talk about that with MSNBC political analyst, Michael Steele, former Republican National chairman. What do you make of Ted Cruz moving up in Iowa? It seems as though he's got more ground troops on the ground. 

MICHAEL STEELE: He does. 

MITCHELL: A better organization, I should say, than Marco Rubio. 

STEELE: Yeah, he does and I’d say probably better than most of the other candidates. The one thing about Ted Cruz that I find very interesting and smart is while everybody has been focused on the bright shining object that is Donald Trump, he has been methodically laying the ground for just such an occasion, to sort of move into a position to challenge for the lead and it's not — it's not about the national polls as you well know, Andrea, national polls mean absolutely butt kiss right now. They mean nothing. It's exactly what is going on in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada that matter most and that's what he's focusing his energy on and he’s gaining the benefits from it. 

MITCHELL: So, Rubio now trying to stake his claim to be the alternative if Ben Carson and Donald Trump fade away, but Cruz and Rubio really are the logical competitors for that role. 

STEELE: They are. They have similar appeals to the base. You know, I think Ted has a stronger conservative advantage across the spectrum. He has been the one who has been in the well, fighting the hardest and the loudest so much so that his colleagues in the Senate don't like him and publicly have stated such. Rubio has baggage that he carries on immigration, and certainly even in terms of the war footing that he's claiming, there's going to be some challenge, not just from someone like Cruz, but also as you saw in the last debate with Rand Paul, which is, again, reflective of what is going on inside the party. So, Cruz has put himself, I think, in the best position to take on Donald Trump leading into the next debate in December. 

MITCHELL: The conventional wisdom has always been that Ted Cruz had so alienated all his colleagues that he was a non-starter to be a national candidate, but this year, that could be an advantage. 

STEELE: Oh, absolutely. In fact, that was something from the very beginning as far as Cruz was concerned that didn't matter to him. He didn’t — in fact, the less — the folks in D.C. liked him the better and that's going to benefit him going forward because he truly is outside both the establishment and what Washington has been talking about the last couple of years.

[Isara]

FYI

[JewishRighter]

Senate’s dislike for Cruz makes him my leading candidate.

[MortMan]

Being liked in Washington is a hallmark of enemies of the people.

[Hoodat]

Ditto.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Which planet is Mitchell living on these days? A real airhead. She’s a joke. Every time I see her name, Rush Limbaugh’s impression of her gets stuck in my head for the rest of the day. LOL!

[norwaypinesavage]

And my dislike of Andrea Mitchell should have made her role as a journalist a non-starter. I’ll also bet that I have more support for my opinion in the public arena than she does for hers.

[a.c.t.32]

Andrea - What’s popular is not always right and what’s right is not always popular. Adults know that. Adolescents - and adults with adolescent mindsets - need to learn it.

[mountn man]

Andrea Mitchell: Senate's Dislike of Cruz Should Have Made Candidacy 'a Non-Starter'

Hey Andrea...Cruz ISN'T the problem.
The Senate IS THE PROBLEM.

[Gaffer]

The rancor of this snake bitch’s ire is an endorsement as far as I’m concerned. She and her husband Alan G. should have been run out of town on a rail long ago.

[Eddie01]

Andrea pays cover charge.

[Chgogal]

I agree.

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm not sure, but ...

I don't think Andrea likes anti-Establishment people.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Andrea Mitchell: Senate's Dislike of Cruz Should Have Made Candidacy "a Non-Starter".

Andrea Mitchell's Obvious Hatred of Republicans Should Have Made Her Credibility "a Non-Starter".

She's nothing but a vicious Hitlary butt-kisser.

[cripplecreek]

Nobody asked the senate to make the choice.

[cripplecreek]

[TruthWillWin]

“Senate is the problem” Bingo!

[Cyman]

The conventional wisdom has always been that Ted Cruz had so alienated all his colleagues that he was a non-starter to be a national candidate, but this year, that could be an advantage.”

Nothing, I mean nothing gets by Andrea the Intellectual. This is one vacuous b@tch

[rightwingcrazy]

One person’s “non-starter” is another person’s prerequisite. Recognizing that requires the ability to recognize and tolerate points of view that differ from one’s own, an ability that Andrea apparently lacks.

[VanDeKoik]

The founders made the Senate irrelevant in picking the president for a reason.

But in 2017 I see Cruz as the Senate President anyway, so they better get use to him.

[abclily]

Really? Andrea likes the stroke-damaged, alcoholic, fatty-rumped, queer liar? Says something about Andrea.